Politics

[Rayvin 5219]

8 minutes ago, Alex said:

But I will call out disingenuous grifters and their band of idiotic followers when I feel they are achieving the square root of fuck all in terms of making lives better 

 

This is of course what they think they're doing too. Anyway look, I dunno why I've waded into this - it never achieves anything. I apologise and will go back to steering clear of this thread.

[Alex 35077]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Actually I'd find that quite interesting if you can be bothered, especially the trade union one. I'm genuinely always open to improving my outlook with relevant information.

This is all in the public domain anyway. But PCS have a newish General Secretary. But a long standing, existing Assistant General Secretary. Both are from different factions. In the case of the latter, their faction has recently taken over their national executive committee via elections. For context, PCS is the largest civil service union, with over 200,000 members. And, therefore, one of the biggest in the UK. One thing their NEC has done is instruct departmental trade unions (ie PCS at departmental level) not to enter pay negotiations. Because of delegation,  departments get a budget for a pay award. They can then give out that pay award as they choose. Eg all departments get enough money for 5% pay increase. But Defra might give 5% across the board and DWP might give 6% to lower grades and less to higher ones. By refusing to negotiate at local level, PCS are saying they want to get rid of delegation so all civil service negotiations happen centrally. Except they know this will never happen. It’s just a pathetic power play. And all it means is their members and all other civil servants will have this year’s pay award delayed. Incidentally the reason it will never happen is because it would trigger decades of equal pay cases. Which would cost the taxpayer billions. Because people would be able to argue their grade in a different department got more in some cases (even though their jobs could be vastly different). 
On the parliamentary questions thing, to give a particular example, John Glen (former Minister for Cabinet Office) has spent the summer sending written PQs asking about Labour’s various plans about intricate matters of future trade union relations, policy. Check off, facility time, etc. A cynic would suggest he must know any new ministers would not have anything like that detail planned out. But Glen would be aware that it would still generate lots of work and hassle to go through the proper processes to reply. 
 

[Rayvin 5219]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

This is all in the public domain anyway. But PCS have a newish General Secretary. But a long standing, existing Assistant General Secretary. Both are from different factions. In the case of the latter, their faction has recently taken over their national executive committee via elections. For context, PCS is the largest civil service union, with over 200,000 members. And, therefore, one of the biggest in the UK. One thing their NEC has done is instruct departmental trade unions (ie PCS at departmental level) not to enter pay negotiations. Because of delegation,  departments get a budget for a pay award. They can then give out that pay award as they choose. Eg all departments get enough money for 5% pay increase. But Defra might give 5% across the board and DWP might give 6% to lower grades and less to higher ones. By refusing to negotiate at local level, PCS are saying they want to get rid of delegation so all civil service negotiations happen centrally. Except they know this will never happen. It’s just a pathetic power play. And all it means is their members and all other civil servants will have this year’s pay award delayed. Incidentally the reason it will never happen is because it would trigger decades of equal pay cases. Which would cost the taxpayer billions. Because people would be able to argue their grade in a different department got more in some cases (even though their jobs could be vastly different). 
On the parliamentary questions thing, to give a particular example, John Glen (former Minister for Cabinet Office) has spent the summer sending written PQs asking about Labour’s various plans about intricate matters of future trade union relations, policy. Check off, facility time, etc. A cynic would suggest he must know any new ministers would not have anything like that detail planned out. But Glen would be aware that it would still generate lots of work and hassle to go through the proper processes to reply. 
 

 

Understood - and thanks.

 

Why are the members supporting their union in making that play (the first one)? As you say, it seems pointless.

[Alex 35077]

Also on PCS they’ve chosen to publicly name and attempt to shame (on their website) an HEO working in Devon. This person removed some posters on notice boards relating to Gaza because she felt they might breach the civil service code and that they might make people uncomfortable. It’s a grey area tbh but that is a fucking pitiful move in the current climate 

[Rayvin 5219]

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Also on PCS they’ve chosen to publicly name and attempt to shame (on their website) an HEO working in Devon. This person removed some posters on notice boards relating to Gaza because she felt they might breach the civil service code and that they might make people uncomfortable. It’s a grey area tbh but that is a fucking pitiful move in the current climate 

 

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the hard left approach on the Gaza situation - it's too tribal when it should be focused on the best solution for all people. So yeah I agree with you on this.

[Alex 35077]

38 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Understood - and thanks.

 

Why are the members supporting their union in making that play (the first one)? As you say, it seems pointless.

A lot (over half) of civil servants are union members. PCS are the biggest one by some margin. They also represent lower grades on the whole. But despite the large numbers of members, it’s relatively easy, in terms of numbers to be elected into their National Executive Committee. Because elections take place locally and there are quite a lot places up for grabs. Eg 5 (plucking that number out of thin air) from DWP at Leeds. Then another 10 from HMRC there (for example etc). Plus most members won’t even bother to vote and you don’t require legal thresholds like in strike ballots and so on. 
What I would surmise in this instance is that you have a quite militant NEC, due to lots of current and recent events, emboldened by Labour now being in power asking for the moon on a stick. And I think the power play is about internal squabbling and politics above all else. Meanwhile the 100,000s of their members just joined (in the main) for better pay and a collective voice. 
This makes my role interesting but saddens me. I am vehemently in favour of trade unions but often think this sort of thing makes them their own worst enemies. More importantly it clearly isn’t serving the vest interests of their members 

Edited August 21 by Alex

[Renton 21615]

52 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 that them winning would be transformative. That they just said what they needed to say to win, but they'd do untold good once in power.

 

This is a complete strawman. Nobody ever said this. Not on here, not the party themselves. The narrative has always been the inheritance is a complete shambles, there is not enough money left to fix things instantly, change will be incremental, painful and certainly not immediately transformative. And now its happening as it was told, people are still twisting. After 6 weeks. Sheesh, I give up. 

[Rayvin 5219]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

This is a complete strawman. Nobody ever said this. Not on here, not the party themselves. The narrative has always been the inheritance is a complete shambles, there is not enough money left to fix things instantly, change will be incremental, painful and certainly not immediately transformative. And now its happening as it was told, people are still twisting. After 6 weeks. Sheesh, I give up. 

 

Gloom is literally in this thread two pages back saying that he's dismayed that despite thinking that this is what would happen, it hasn't. People on here were definitely saying this man  Labour were saying nothing whatsoever, I'll give you that.

[Alex 35077]

12 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

For what it's worth, I don't agree with the hard left approach on the Gaza situation - it's too tribal when it should be focused on the best solution for all people. So yeah I agree with you on this.

They could have raised a (potentially) legitimate complaint and put the article in their website. But there was no need to name the person in the case of the latter. Including their grade and work location. Wtf is that all about? 

[Rayvin 5219]

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

They could have raised a (potentially) legitimate complaint and put the article in their website. But there was no need to name the person in the case of the latter. Including their grade and work location. Wtf is that all about? 

 

It's just vindictive. Which I will concede a lot of people in the hard left are.

[Alex 35077]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

It's just vindictive. Which I will concede a lot of people in the hard left are.

It’ll be borne out of some petty office squabble / clash of personalities shite too probably. 

[spongebob toonpants 3995]

25 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

This is a complete strawman. Nobody ever said this. Not on here, not the party themselves. The narrative has always been the inheritance is a complete shambles, there is not enough money left to fix things instantly, change will be incremental, painful and certainly not immediately transformative. And now its happening as it was told, people are still twisting. After 6 weeks. Sheesh, I give up. 

If this were Tory enacted policy everybody would be rightly criticising it, but because it's Labour we have to suck it up?

 

I'm glad the Tories got booted, I'm not saying they're all the same and Labour are much better on not being totally corrupt and racist.

 

I still think that their economic strategy is wrong and I don't think it's out of place for me to say it. The 28billion green investment would have been transformational for the country, and the right thing to do, to borrow a phrase. As it is the country is just going to get worse, just possibly at a slower rate

 

We should expect and demand more

[Renton 21615]

46 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

If this were Tory enacted policy everybody would be rightly criticising it, but because it's Labour we have to suck it up?

 

Which policy are we talking about here? I honestly do not know.

 

28 billion is just a number. The idea behind it is still intact and I am sure investment in green energy is still key to this parliamentary term. The number itself was dropped because, if it wasn't, Labour would not have won the majority they need to enact it.

 

And, SIX WEEKS. Come on man, it's too early for this nonsense. 

[spongebob toonpants 3995]

Not one specific policy, just the direction of travel. Cancelling infrastructure projects, targeting welfare, keeping the narrative on "tough decisions" departmental cuts.

So far it's just more of the same

 

Hopefully it changes in the future, the sooner the better

[Alex 35077]

That’s the point here. On one hand you’re saying ‘if this was Tory enacted policy…’ yet you can’t name a policy as an example. You’re criticising them on the basis of media speculation rather than anything they’ve specifically done. I don’t doubt we’ll all worry about them not being brave enough in the not too distant future. But it isn’t straightforward and they’ve inherited an absolute shit tip. And most of them have zero experience of government 

[Renton 21615]

I've no problems with the terminology "tough decisions". Decisions in government are difficult, there are tradeoffs with everything. They've inherited an apalling situation:

• Huge debt (about 4x that the cons inherited, close to 100% GDP), a significant deficit at a time when interest rates are relatively high.*
• Highest taxation rates since WW2.
• Flatlined productivity.
• Worse standard of life than in 2010.
• Acute and long-term housing crisis.
• Fucked infrastructure, can't even build a simple railway any more.
• Cut off from our trading block, huge Brexit liabilities. 
• Record immigration. 
• Shambolic public services. Literally, none of them working properly. 
• External threats from Russia and the US (if Trump wins). Deteriorating ME situation.
• Environmental crisis, polluted waterways, climate change.

That's literally just off the top of my head. So far on the negatiVe they have cancelled the luxury of building a tunnel under Stone Henge and taken winter fuel payments away from relatively wealthy pensioners. That's it.

 

* Why is this important? Because we are spending £89 billion quid on debt interest repayments alone. More than education and defence budgets combined. So when Reeve's talks about cutting the deficit and balancing the books, it is not because she wants to inflict an idealogical austerity on us. It's because the country is currently wasting billions of pounds paying interest that could be used for public services. 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21915]

4 hours ago, Renton said:

 

Like what? Seriously, I don't remember them doing anything they didn't say they would do. It's pretty much well regarded Labour were remarkably unambitious in their first term, after inheriting a much, much better economy. 

made the Bank of England independent - that wasn’t in the manifesto 

[Dr Gloom 21915]

3 hours ago, Rayvin said:

 

Gloom is literally in this thread two pages back saying that he's dismayed that despite thinking that this is what would happen, it hasn't. People on here were definitely saying this man  Labour were saying nothing whatsoever, I'll give you that.

Again I’ll caveat it by saying it’s early days and they have done some good stuff in the short time they’ve been in power. I just get a bad vibe about Reeves. I was hoping there mint be an early rabbit or two not in the manifesto but I’ve got a bad feeling she is going to pander to a lot of middle England who helped elect Labour. I hope I’m wrong and we don’t have to wait until the second term for the transformative stuff because it might be too late by then. They need to work out how they’re going to start improving peoples lives in the first term. Some signposting around closer alignment with the EU would be a good place to start 

[spongebob toonpants 3995]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

I've no problems with the terminology "tough decisions". Decisions in government are difficult, there are tradeoffs with everything. They've inherited an apalling situation:

• Huge debt (about 4x that the cons inherited, close to 100% GDP), a significant deficit at a time when interest rates are relatively high.*
• Highest taxation rates since WW2.
• Flatlined productivity.
• Worse standard of life than in 2010.
• Acute and long-term housing crisis.
• Fucked infrastructure, can't even build a simple railway any more.
• Cut off from our trading block, huge Brexit liabilities. 
• Record immigration. 
• Shambolic public services. Literally, none of them working properly. 
• External threats from Russia and the US (if Trump wins). Deteriorating ME situation.
• Environmental crisis, polluted waterways, climate change.

That's literally just off the top of my head. So far on the negatiVe they have cancelled the luxury of building a tunnel under Stone Henge and taken winter fuel payments away from relatively wealthy pensioners. That's it.

 

* Why is this important? Because we are spending £89 billion quid on debt interest repayments alone. More than education and defence budgets combined. So when Reeve's talks about cutting the deficit and balancing the books, it is not because she wants to inflict an idealogical austerity on us. It's because the country is currently wasting billions of pounds paying interest that could be used for public services. 

 

 

I don't disagree with your diagnosis, I just think it needs a different solution.

 

It's OK, we're all (sort of) grown-ups, we don't have to agree on everything

[Dr Gloom 21915]

I also like their idea to build homes on part of the green belt, “brown belt” I think they called it. Hopefully this gets moving sharpish 

[Dr Gloom 21915]

1 minute ago, spongebob toonpants said:

 

 

It's OK, we're all (sort of) grown-ups

 

[Gemmill 44853]

Grey belt baby. Like the one CT uses to keep his 32 inch grey action slax up. 

Edited August 21 by Gemmill

[Renton 21615]

9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

I just get a bad vibe about Reeves.

 

Personally, I'm the opposite. She's got a Gordon Brown vibe to me. Highly intelligent, balanced, pragmatic not idealist. Chess champion so her strategy will be spot on. 

 

8 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

I also like their idea to build homes on part of the green belt, “brown belt” I think they called it. Hopefully this gets moving sharpish 

 

It's the "grey" belt. Technically green belt land that is of no particularly outstanding beauty or worthy of preservation, whatever the nimbys say. 

I mean, if you bought a house on the fringe of a new estate that backs on to fields, I can feel some sympathy for you but you can't pull up the draw bridge behind you. We need more houses. With the caveat we need more infrastructure and services for them too. 

I'd like to see more densification within towns and cities too with better public transport links so people don't need cars. Also new builds to have eco-friendly energy systems built into them. But all of this takes time, money, and crucially, capacity. We're short on all three. 

[Alex 35077]

16 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

I also like their idea to build homes on part of the green belt, “brown belt” I think they called it. Hopefully this gets moving sharpish 

I think the proper legal definitions are greenfield and brownfield. The latter is land that has previously been developed for industrial use etc. The former is land that hasn’t been developed in theory. They’ve talked about building on the former where it’s anomalously in a greenfield designated area. Like you might have a big disused carpark that’s near the coast or something. But it falls within greenfield land so you can’t easily build in it. You can but there’s a lot of red tape. 

[Gemmill 44853]

5 hours ago, Alex said:

The Guardian is a genuinely shite newspaper